[seqfan] Re: Wieferich, Wilson and Wolstenholme primes less than 10^n

[Felix Fröhlich]

Yes, I agree that the sequences themselves are not particularly
interesting. I note that the search bounds are already in A001220
and A007540. The search bound for Wall-Sun-Sun primes is mentioned in
A244801. The next term of A088164 must be larger than 10^9 as established
by McIntosh and Roettger, although currently that isn't explicitly stated
on the sequence page.


2014-08-20 4:47 GMT+02:00 Charles Greathouse <charles.greathouse at case.edu>:

> So all of the underlying sequences -- Wiefrich primes, Wilson primes, and
> Wolstenholme primes -- are interesting. (If you needed more W* primes,
> consider Wall-Sun-Sun primes.) The trouble is just that the sequences are
> (1) hard to look up, (2) not of themselves very interesting, and (3)
> base-dependent. When there are sequences it's best to keep information
> there.
>
> Charles Greathouse
> Analyst/Programmer
> Case Western Reserve University
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The rejected sequences all had a LOT of zero terms, and one or two or in
> > one case three nonzero terms.  Considered purely as sequences, they were
> > not very interesting, and did not warrant
> > having their own entries.
> >
> > A sequence like 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 doesn't deserve its own entry.
> > That probably was not one of yours, but it is similar.
> >
> > The best thing to do is to add the content of the sequence as a comment
> on
> > the underlying sequence.
> >
> > Say as a comment, not as a new sequence, that *****  is 1 1 1 0,0,0,0,...
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Neil
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Felix Fröhlich <
> > felix.froe at googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I recently drafted four sequences, whose addition to the OEIS was
> > rejected.
> > > I am not complaining about the rejection, but I would like to gather
> some
> > > opinions on whether such sequences in general should be in the OEIS or
> > not.
> > > The sequences gave the number of Wall-Sun-Sun, Wieferich, Wilson and
> > > Wolstenholme primes in the interval [10^n, 10^(n+1)] (see A244801,
> > A001220,
> > > A007540 and A088164 for definitions of these primes).
> > >
> > > All of those sequences consisted of a lot of zeros. There is currently
> no
> > > known Wall-Sun-Sun prime and it is an open problem whether any such
> prime
> > > exists. The sequence for Wilson primes for example started (with offset
> > 0)
> > > 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
> > >
> > > My question is, should those sequences be in the OEIS, maybe in another
> > > form? In order to avoid the many zeros, the definition could be changed
> > to
> > > "a(n) = number of W...... primes less than 10^n". For the Wilson
> primes,
> > > for example, this would give the sequence (with offset 1): 1, 2, 3, 3,
> 3,
> > > 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3
> > >
> > > Further terms are currently unknown. The latest search went to 2*10^13
> > > according to the results reported in http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3436
> > >
> > > Would those adjusted sequences make sense?
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Felix
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dear Friends, I have now retired from AT&T. New coordinates:
> >
> > Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation
> > 11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA.
> > Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
> > Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com
> > Email: njasloane at gmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>